Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The article discusses the use of expertise in conducting investigative experiments, analyzed the procedural status of the expert and the mechanism of its attraction. In order to perform the tasks of criminal proceedings determined criteria for the use of expertise in the course of this investigation.The activity takes place in a specialist under the authority of the investigator in the application of their expertise. Specialist during the investigative experiment serves as an assistant investigator in the decision of a number of special knowledge, which require a professional specialized knowledge and skills in their use and do not require an expert study.
The activities of the pre-trial investigation among investigative action to investigate crimes, is widely used investigative experiment. Investigatory experiment is investigating actions that require preparation, clear organization and continuous management of all experiences during the meeting. Therefore, the involvement of experts having specialized knowledge and technical means, under the supervision of the investigator can only positively affect the quality of the implementation of the investigative action.
Using expertise in conducting investigative experiment can be carried out in accordance with relevant criteria for their application. Using expertise in conducting investigative experiment has the following criteria: procedural and non-procedural.
Procedural criteria for the use of expertise in conducting investigative experiment — the provision of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine regulating the conduct of investigative (investigative) action. Non-procedural simultaneously share on forensic and scientific criteria.
On the basis of the above, we can conclude that in order to ensure the effectiveness of the investigative experiment should be regarded as part and use their specialist expertise in conducting the respective investigative action. Separation criteria for the use of expertise in conducting investigative experiment, in our opinion, it is appropriate, as each criterion is expressed in terms of highly specialized area of expertise and focus their use.
References
Kryminalʹnyy protsesualʹnyy kodeks Ukrayiny: nauk.-prakt. komentar / vidp. red. S. V. Kivalov, S. M. Mishchenko, V. YU. Zakharchenko. — KH.: Odissey, 2013. — 1224 s.
Vladymyrov L. E. Uchenye ob uholovnykh dokazatelʹstvakh. Chasty: Obshchaya y Osobennaya / L. E. Vladymyrov. — 3-e yzd. — SPb.: Yzd. kn. mahazyna «Zakonovedenye», 1910. — 127 s.
Vynberh A. Y. Spetsyalyst v protsese predvarytelʹnoho rassledovanyya / A. Y. Vynberh // Sots. zakonnostʹ. — 1961. — № 9. — S. 30–35.
Zozulynsʹkyy A. Uchastʹ ponyatykh i spetsialistiv u slidchykh diyakh / A. Zozulynsʹkyy // Rad. pravo. — 1972. — № 4. — S. 48–52.
Volkova I. A. Sudovo-bukhhaltersʹka ekspertyza: navch. posib. [dlya stud. vyshch. navch. zakl.] / I. A. Volkova. — K.: Tsentr uchb. lit., 2009. — 84 s.
Horydʹko A. Pryvlechenye spetsyalysta-krymynalysta k rassledovanyyu prestuplenyy: ucheb. posobye / A. Horydʹko, E. Konovalov. — K.: RYO MVD USSR, 1968. — 28 s.
Yshchenko P. P. Spetsyalyst v sledstvennykh deystvyyakh (uholovno-protsessualʹnye y krymynalystycheskye aspekty): prakt. posobye / P. P. Yshchenko. — M.: Yuryd. lyt., 1990. — 160 s.
Zynyn A. M. Krymynalyst v sledstvennykh deystvyyakh: ucheb.-prakt. posobye / A. M. Zynyn. — M.: Pravo y Zakon, Ékzamen, 2004. — 144 c.
Khrustalev V. N. Uchastye spetsyalysta-krymynalysta v sledstvennykh deystvyyakh / V. N. Khrustalev, R. YU. Trubytsyn. — SPb.: Pyter, 2003. — 208 s.
Kryminalʹnyy protses: pidruchnyk / YU. M. Hroshevskyy, V. YA. Tatsiy, A. R. Tumanyants ta in.; za red. V. YA. Tatsiya, YU. M. Hroshevsʹkoho, O. V. Kaplinoyi, O. H. Shylo. — KH.: Pravo, 2013. — 824 s.